Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations

List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations

List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating article for deletion due to WP:REDUNDANT & WP:GNG. Per WP:BEFORE looked for reliable sources to see if subject "U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations" have received in-depth and/or significant coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, and there doesn't appear to be sufficient reliable sources to show that the subject meets WP:GNG. Therefore this article should be deleted, or merged and redirected to Indian American#Demographics. This logic follows the reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. cities with large Filipino American populations. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, due to the name of the article it appears that the wikilinking isn't working properly. The article in question is List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and add relevant info to Indian American. -- Calidum 04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, really, esp. since the basic terms of the article title and thus its subject are difficult to quantify. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--TMD Talk Page. 03:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion. First, list articles have a reason for being, hey they're lists! Further, this article is NOT redundant. But I've always thought this 3 year old article should be retitled to drop the "South Asian" part and should just be "List of U.S. cities with large Indian American populations", because that's where all the reliable sources are in the Census and it can then be improved. One person has expressed the same complaint above. But to shove it back into the parent article would make that article look bad and is not the answer or good form. It's a shame the fate that occurred to the Filipino list article but every ethnicity is different and there's no reason an "Indian American" list article can't do as well as all the other ethnic list articles on Wikipedia that have done well themselves. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a sub-article but an independent list article, therefore it must stand on its own for notability. The Filipino American list article was merged with an appropriate sub-article. The Indian American article does not have such an appropriate article or meets WP:SIZERULE to warrant a sub-article (presently 44.3k of readable prose (including titles and stuff in tables and infoboxes, 93k in size including references).

Furthermore, just because there is data doesn't mean that it has received in-depth/significant coverage. There is data about the tides in Mission Bay and its sunrise and sunsets, but that doesn't make that data notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok some good points you make, but then that means deletion or merge is jumping over the centre step. A better idea would be to move this article to "List of U.S. cities with significant Indian American populations" (which I cannot do as IP) and then give it some time and a chance to develop like that without the extra burden of the South Asian feature continuing to hold the article back from notable improvement. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving it does not address the central issue of the subject requiring it meet notability requirements. Even if the South Asian part of the title is jettisoned, it does not make the subject any more notable, and thus warrant/worthy of a stand alone list article. That has not been addressed by the ip editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not? I cannot do all the work but I will be prepared to provide needed references. Of course it is notable, as a list article, which there are many in Wikipedia. I see nothing which makes all those articles more notable than this one. But it has been less compelling to reference because the title has gotten in the way. Once moved, I at least would be more inclined to get the sources. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)